Jurisdictional disputes in the motion-picture Industry : hearings before a special subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, first-session, pursuant to H. Res. 111 (1948)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

MOTION-PICTURE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES 857 Mr. Walsh. Mr. Sclienck did not. Mr. Casey returned to Hollywood here and I believe there was notices sent to the local unions and the internationa] asking them to put their people back to work. I think there was letters sent out, if I can remember right, there was letters sent out to the individuals asking them to come back to work. Mr. McCann. That probably is correct. Now, that strike, as I recall it, continued until the American Federation of Labor, though its council . ordered the men to go back to work in October of 1945. Is that correct ? Mr. Walsh. The Cincinnati agreement, they ordered the strike terminated and the men return to work. Mr. McCann. And then they had their conference out here and there were eil'orts on the part of the local unions to get together on different functions, as I understand it. Mr. Walsh. That is right. ]\fr. McCanx. Now, this was a contract, as I remember it, that was entered into between the grips and the carpenters with respect to the set erection. Mr. Walsh. With respect to the set erection that come out of their jurisdiction. Mr. McCann. Well, was there anj^thing in the contract which came under their jurisdiction ? Mr. Walsh. Yes. If you will read the last clause of the contract, the contract only covers what comes under local 80 jurisdiction. Mr. McCann. There was something in the contract, as I remember — this doesn't purport to settle other differences ? Mr. Walsh. That is correct. Mr. McCann. Under that contract the grips were given certain functions and the carpenters were given certain functions, as I recall it. You were ready to approve that as the international president of the lATSE, is that correct ? Mr. Walsh. That is correct. Mr. McCann. And it met with your approval. I think you so testified yesterday. When the disposition was made by the three-man committee with respect to set erection, did it not take some Avork away from the grips as well as from the carpenters ? Mr. Walsh. No, it didn't; because as I testified yesterday, we had certain people employed during the 1945 strike and they were waiting around for 60 days for the decision to come down from the three-man committee. Thirty days which we tried to adjust it ourselves in Hollywood, and 30 days on which the three-man committee worked. Mr. McCann. Yes. Mr. Walsh. And the people who were working, waiting around had been the people who were doing the set erecting during that strike. Mr. McCann. They were not grips ? Mr. Walsh. No. The grips did not do the work during the strike. Mr. McCann. The grips did not do any set erection during the strike ? Mr. Walsh. No. They may have done some set erection, but they were not considered the set erectors.